Comments on: Free-For-All Friday 11/9/12http://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/11/09/free-for-all-friday-11912/
News, Events & DiscussionTue, 03 Mar 2015 23:21:19 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Cubalibrehttp://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/11/09/free-for-all-friday-11912/#comment-319057
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:56:44 +0000http://www.decaturmetro.com/?p=25245#comment-319057They can’t see your response if your account is protected & they don’t follow you (according to Twitter’s Help). If your account isn’t protected, anyone can see a response you send. That was what I meant, but inarticulately posted!
]]>By: At Home in Decaturhttp://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/11/09/free-for-all-friday-11912/#comment-319050
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:21:26 +0000http://www.decaturmetro.com/?p=25245#comment-319050Yeah, I thought about it and if Ted wasn’t a good fit for Jane Fonda, he’s not for me either.
]]>By: AnotherRickhttp://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/11/09/free-for-all-friday-11912/#comment-319048
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:15:53 +0000http://www.decaturmetro.com/?p=25245#comment-319048How are you sure you are not Ted’s type?
]]>By: iheartnelliebellehttp://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/11/09/free-for-all-friday-11912/#comment-318346
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:27:28 +0000http://www.decaturmetro.com/?p=25245#comment-318346Not based on my experiences eating outside — but that may be because people don’t know and restaurant workers aren’t going to cause a problem by mentioning it.
]]>By: Cubalibrehttp://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/11/09/free-for-all-friday-11912/#comment-318066
Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:28:11 +0000http://www.decaturmetro.com/?p=25245#comment-318066Thanks for the info! Going to hit Intown tomorrow afternoon…did I really see where someone had a TWO POUND rat in their house? *feeling faint*
]]>By: Cubalibrehttp://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/11/09/free-for-all-friday-11912/#comment-318063
Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:25:37 +0000http://www.decaturmetro.com/?p=25245#comment-318063Not to pile on, but you should check out “Gasland”, a little documentary currently out. It’s pretty eye-opening, especially when you see water running out of a kitchen faucet burst into flame when a match is struck near it! I’m not rabidly anti-fossil fuels, but I really don’t think fracking has been made safe enough for the surrounding environments where it’s being done. There HAS to be a serious effort to start finding/using alternative fuels, because methane, coal, etc. are finite resources.
]]>By: smalltowngalhttp://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/11/09/free-for-all-friday-11912/#comment-318009
Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:47:25 +0000http://www.decaturmetro.com/?p=25245#comment-318009Re. methane contamination of drinking water wells, you might find this of interest: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-for-natural-gas-pollutes-water-wells

It is not true that “it is virtually impossible” for chemicals used in fracking operations to get back to the surface. They actually are allowed to inject into and adjacent to UDWSs (Underground Drinking Water Sources). For the 20-80% of the water that stays underground, the full landscape of faults and fractures is not adequately mapped, much less what it looks like after they’ve created the fractures needed to liberate the gas they’re after. So they don’t really know, and certainly can’t control, what happens to it. For the waste water that is recovered: it is referred to as “backflow” and contains any number of chemicals, many of which are known toxins (some even in minuscule amounts), and is designated hazardous waste. It is supposed to be handled and disposed of accordingly, but there are already many documented cases of accidental spills. Worse, there is a severe shortage of waste disposal facilities capable of handling the waste, which in some cases may contain radioactive substances. The scariest part of this, IMO, is except in the few states that have implemented disclosure laws, the companies engaging in these operations are not even required to identify which hazardous materials they are using. It can be done non-toxically — has to be, in offshore operations to protect marine life — but nobody is forcing that to happen on land.

Not only are they drawing down aquifers (100s of 1000s of gallons for each coalbed methane well, many millions of gallons for each shale well, but all that water has to be trucked around which creates another cascade of environmental impacts that need to be factored in.

Each well uses from several hundred thousand to several million pounds of sand as proppant. The sharp increase in sand mining and transport (which obviously creates jobs) also has its own train of environmental damage and fossil fuel resource consumption.

There are also well-founded concerns about the degradation of air quality, particularly around the flowback operations.

I’m not advocating a knee-jerk opposition here. It should be obvious to everyone that we can’t simply stop using fossil fuels overnight. But by now, we should all be alert and aware, and when new resource extraction methods are being implemented, we should demand that it all be done carefully and responsibly.